Gendered Morality Judgments of Leaders: Gender stereotypes determine the moral evaluation of male and female leaders

Gendered Morality Judgments of Leaders:

Gender stereotypes determine the moral evaluation of male and

female leaders

Abstract

Most of prior gender research is focused on the different traits that men and women are expected to possess and how these traits play out at work. Particularly once women reach a top position it is argued that they are evaluated differently than men because of their anticipated communal leadership style. In this thesis, I examined whether these gendered leadership beliefs also impact on the evaluation of proscriptive or prescriptive moral behavior that male and female leaders display. Contradictory to what was hypothesized, the results of Study x show that leader gender did not impact on people’s evaluations of leaders who displayed immoral behavior. It was only found that people thought more negatively of leaders who displayed prescriptive immoral behavior than of leaders who displayed proscriptive immoral behavior. In Study 2, the results show that gender did have an impact on the evaluation of leaders who display proscriptive or prescriptive moral behavior. Male leaders were seen as moral regardless of whether their moral behavior was prescriptive or

proscriptive, whereas female leaders were only seen as moral when they displayed

Introduction

People generally hold gendered beliefs about what it means to be an effective leader. Female leaders are stereotypically seen as warm and caring persons, that is, they are known for possessing communal leadership traits (O’Neill & O’Reilly, 2011). Male leaders, on the other hand, are believed to possess agentic leadership traits associated with assertiveness and competence. These, latter, more agentic traits are also associated in people’s minds with effective leadership. According to role congruity theory (Eagly, 1987), this “think manager-think male” association often leads to a negative evaluation of female leaders.

In the current research, I aim to demonstrate that female leaders are also evaluated differently than male leaders because men and women are believed to differ in their moral reasoning and judgments (Dawson, 1995). It is expected that women, compared to men, are more concerned with being fair, just and kind (Blasi, 1984), and with behaving morally, that is behaving in line with how one ought to act (Carnes, 2012).

The gender differences associated with morality have been linked to communal behaviors. Some have argued that stereotypical feminine, or communal behavior entails a focus on social relationships, interpersonal affiliation, and harmony with others, which is closely related to moral behavior (Page Winterich, K., Mittal, V., & Ross Jr, W., 2009). Yet others propose that morality judgments truly represent another, unique reason why female leaders are evaluated differently than male leaders. I will investigate this latter proposition by testing how two forms of moral behaviors towards others (one more active than the other) relate to perceptions of communality and inform the evaluation of leaders. The distinction between prescriptive and proscriptive displays of morality is part of previous research by Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh (2009) and lies at the core of a model for moral motives. Based on this model and on gender role theory (Eagly, 1987), I propose that female leaders will be evaluated differently depending on how communal they behave and whether they display the more active, prescriptive form of morality (rather than the more passive, proscriptive form of morality). For male leaders, it is less important whether they are communal or not, and whether they use the prescriptive or descriptive form of morality.

Yet if the morality dimension also leads to gender biases, it can explain why female leaders are sometimes judged negatively even though they fulfil the communal stereotype. Second, by examining this issue, I can inform the gender literature on when female leaders are

Conceptual Framework

Gendered leadership beliefs

Generally speaking, there are two dimensions that underlie most judgments of people’s traits, groups, and even cultures. Although the definitions vary, the first dimension makes reference to attributes such as competence, instrumentality, agency, and individualism (from now on: the agency dimension), and the second dimension to warmth, communality, expressiveness and collectivism (from now on: the communality dimension; Kurt, Inman & Argo, 2011). These traits are stable personal characteristics, meaning that individuals behave in fairly predictable ways across time and situations and observers come to describe the individual in those terms. Cultural stereotypes can make it seem that women do not have what it takes for important leadership roles. This cultural mismatch, or role incongruity, between women and the perceived demands of leadership underlies biased evaluations of women as leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002).

At the basis of the biased evaluation of female leaders is an inconsistency between the predominantly communal qualities that people associate with women and the predominantly agentic qualities that they believe are required for success as a leader (Eagly & Carli, 2007). As stated before, agentic qualities are ascribed more to men than women, so leadership is generally associated with masculinity. People particularly rely on these two basic dimensions when they have to judge important others who they do not know very well personally, such as leaders (Fiebert & Meyer, 1997). And, these two basic dimensions are often also applied to men and women. Men are stereotypically judged to possess more agentic, leader-like qualities, including directedness and self-confidence, than women. As a result, ideal and typical leaders are often believed to be men. That is, people tend to hold a “think manager-think male” association (Schein, 1973).

Gender and Moral Judgments

Besides the two dimensions stated above, there is also the concept of morality that underlies people’s judgments. According to Kohlberg (1958), morality is conceptualized as justice in terms of rules and rights. People are moral defined by the principles, values and beliefs that shape societal goals and behaviors. Highly moral people live in alignment with those values and beliefs. Yet Janoff-Bulman et al. (2009) further argues that one can distinguish two fundamental forms of morality that affect people’s relations with others. The first one is prescriptive morality, which involves the enactment of “good” behaviors that achieve positive outcomes, such as relieving others from their suffering or advancing their welfare and well-being. Prescriptive morality is thus driven by the wish to actively provide help to others. The other form is proscriptive morality, which involves the inhibition of “bad” behaviors that violate valued group norms and lead to negative outcomes, such as physical harm and violation of others’ trust. So proscriptive morality is driven by a wish to protect others through the inhibition of self-advantaging behaviors; to not physically harm them, and to not lie, cheat and steal from others. So, when we look more closely into the two fundamental forms of morality we find two distinct types of behavior that a leader can display: helping others versus not harming others.

The same fundamental distinction can also be applied to immoral behavior. Besides the virtues (i.e., traits associated with “goodness” or morality), there are also vices, which are traits associated with “badness” or immorality. Conversely to the previous stated with

morality, prescriptive immorality is an omission of, or a failure to activate, good behaviors, whereas proscriptive immorality is an act of, or a failure to inhibit, bad behavior. For example, greed and gluttony can be associated with doing the wrong thing (i.e., proscriptive immorality) whereas apathy and sloth can be associated with not doing the right thing (i.e., prescriptive immorality).

Although morality has distinct features, there is overlap with agency and

However, prior research suggest that male and female leaders will be judged differently when displaying these forms of morality. It has been found that people do not immediately link moral behaviors of men to their agentic traits, because these traits only tap into abstract moral values and do not specify the type of moral behaviors men are likely to display; they are merely believed to be receptive to authority and to value objectivity (Helgeson, 1994). So typical agentic male leaders should generally be seen as moral, but they are not expected to demonstrate specific moral behaviors. For their evaluation it should thus not matter whether they deliberately display active behaviors to aid others (demonstrate prescriptive moral behavior), or whether they just inhibit self-advantaging behaviors to not physically harm others (demonstrate proscriptive moral behavior).

By contrast, there is a link between certain moral behaviors of women and their anticipated communal traits, as these traits do specify concrete behavior (e.g., helping others, feeling obligated to relevant others, and considering others feelings; Dawson, 1995; Bem, 1974). This means that female leaders will probably only be seen as moral when they actively demonstrate prescriptive moral behavior and deliberately activate behaviors to aid others. It may not suffice for them to only show proscriptive moral behaviors to not hurt others.

Taken together, there is overlap between agency, communality and morality, but there seems to be a stronger link between morality and communality than between morality and agency (Gert, 2005). As a result, I propose that the evaluation of prescriptive and proscriptive (im)moral leadership behaviors should depend on the gender of the leader. That is, when female leaders display prescriptive moral behavior, they confirm gendered beliefs that they are a moral and communal leader and will be evaluated positively. When, however female leaders display proscriptive moral behaviors only, they may onfirm the belief that they are a communal leader on the basis of some communal traits that are not morally charged, but they will not be perceived as a moral leader. This in turn, can have negative consequences for their evaluation. Stated differently, female leaders will more quickly display moral behavior that is not aligned with their anticipated communal leadership style and this will probably lead to a negative evaluation.

To conclude, because female leaders have limited options to demonstrate their morality to subordinates, they run a greater risk of being evaluated negatively compared to male leaders. Based on this logic, the following hypotheses can be stated:

Hypothesis 1: For female leaders, there’s a specific link between communality and morality. When they display prescriptive morality, they will also be perceived as communal but when they display proscriptive morality, they will be perceived as non-communal.

Hypothesis 2: For male leaders, the link between agency and morality is more abstract. Whether they display prescriptive morality or proscriptive morality, in both cases the male leader will be perceived as moral.

These links between agentic traits, communal traits and perceived morality should have opposite effects on leader evaluations when a leader displays immoral behavior. As stated the communal traits commonly associated with female leaders prescribe a focus on helping others. So, when a female leader lacks this activation of aiding behavior towards others, whether this is in a prescriptive form (i.e. apathy or sloth) or a proscriptive form (i.e. greed or gluttony) of immorality, she will be perceived as immoral and non-communal. This means that women are evaluated more critically when they display moral behavior (as only proscriptive moral behavior will be positively evaluated), and will be judged more harshly when they display immoral behavior (as both proscriptive and prescriptive immoral behavior reflect a failure in actively helping others).

As agentic traits are more abstractly linked to morality, a male leader will probably only be evaluated negatively when he displays proscriptive immoral behavior which is generally judged more severely by people. Based on these conditions for male and female leaders, the following hypotheses can be stated:

Hypothesis 3: For female leaders, there’s a specific link between communality and immorality. Whether they display a form of prescriptive immorality or proscriptive

Method Design

The two conducted studies were scenario studies in English and hold a 2 (form of morality: prescriptive vs. proscriptive) by 2 (gender of the leader: male vs. female) between subjects design. In the first study, from now on referred to as Study 1, participants were exposed to a moral scenario and in the second study, from now on referred to as Study 2, participants were exposed to an immoral scenario. A total of 200 participants, 100 for the moral study and 100 for the immoral study, were randomly allocated to one of the eight scenarios by an online questionnaire program, resulting in 25 respondents per scenario. Attention for this research was manifested through websites such as Qualtrics and an American online marketplace, Mturk.com. For the employment of this marketplace, incentives were used.

Participants

For Study 1, 48% of the respondents were male and 52% were female. The participants were predominantly between 25 and 33 years old (46%), had a white ethnicity (73%) and had a Bachelor’s degree (34%). The majority of the sample described their own seniority in the organization as ‘middle level’ (23%). For Study 2, 67% of the respondents were male and 33% were female. The participants were predominantly between 23 and 31 years old (43%), had a white ethnicity (80%) and had a Bachelor’s degree (35%). The majority of the sample described their own seniority in the organization as ‘very junior’ (33%).

Experimental Procedure

Both studies largely used the same procedure, which was mainly based on previous conducted morality research (Janoff-Bulman, 2009; Studies 1-7). Participants were exposed to a scenario were a male or female leader performed a moral action (Study 1) or an immoral action (Study 2). The display of this moral/immoral behavior happened in an active proscriptive manner, or, in a passive prescriptive way. After reading the scenario they were assigned to, participants were presented with questions regarding the dependent measures, the control variables, manipulation checks and some demographics & background information.

Manipulation of Leader Gender

To check this manipulation, participants were asked (after answering questions regarding the dependent measures and the control variables) to indicate whether the leader was male or female (1 = male vs. 2 = female).

Manipulation of Type of Action

The type of action displayed by the leader was manipulated through two moral scenarios (Study 1) and two immoral scenarios (Study 2). In the moral scenarios, the leader either performed an action that helped others(representing proscriptive moral behavior) or did not harm others (representing prescriptive moral behavior). In the immoral scenarios, the leader performed an action that harmed (representing proscriptive inmoral behavior) or did not help others (representing prescriptive immoral behavior). So, in the prescriptive forms of

(im)morality, the leader shows an act or omission of good behavior. In the proscriptive forms of (im)morality, the leader shows an act or omission of bad behavior. To check these

manipulations, participants were asked (after answering questions regarding the dependent measures and the control variables) to indicate whether the leader in the presented scenario actively or passively helped/harmed others. The manipulation questions of the form of morality can be found in the complete questionnaire which is enclosed in the appendix. Dependent Measures

All questions and measures used in both studies are included in the Appendix. I did not observe significant results on the career support measures or on the questions regarding moral rationalizations. The findings are therefore not reported in my thesis, but are available upon request.

Gendered Leader Stereotypes

Participants were asked to indicate whether certain traits were applicable on the leader in the presented scenario (1 = not at all to 7 = very much). The sixteen items were divided by agentic traits (8 items such as “competent” and “abrasive”, α Study 1 = 0.46 & α Study 2 = 0.47, note: no internal consistency between the items),

Work Impressions

Participants were also asked to indicate their work impression of the leader in the presented scenario (1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The three questions from the survey, the questions regarding hiring, leadership and liking (see appendix for an overview of those questions), were combined to a scale with twelve items, because of their high level of comparability, which indicates the work impression (α immoral study = 0.956 & α moral study = 0.98). Experienced Feelings

Finally, participants were asked to indicate their feelings towards the leader that was

presented in the scenario (1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). These feelings were combined into a positive affect scale (6 items such as “admiration” and “sympathy”, α immoral study = 0.849 & α moral study = 0.68) and a negative affect scale (8 items such as “disgust” and

“revulsion”, α immoral study = 0.949 & α moral study = 0.92).

Control Variables

I controlled for gender participant and whether the participant performs a managerial role himself/herself. This is because previous research has shown that males evaluate differently compared to females and this is also the case for leader evaluation, ratings of actual male managers corresponded more with stereotypes of male than female managers, and ratings of actual female managers corresponded more with stereotypes of female than male managers (Kusterer, Lindholm & Montgomery, 2013). Gender participant and the performance of a managerial role were both measured with a single item, which can be found in the appendix.

Results

Manipulation Checks

In the second manipulation respectively 96% (Study 1) and 98% (Study 2) of the participants correctly identified whether they were presented with a proscriptive or prescriptive scenario at the beginning of the survey. The indication was given by entering a 1 for active and a 2 for passive behavior of the leader.

Dependent Measures

In both studies, all results were obtained by performing 2 (gender leader: male vs. female) x 2 ((im)moral act: proscriptive vs. prescriptive) ANOVAs with gender participant and

management-level participants as control variables.

Gendered Leader Stereotypes

For communality, we found main effects for the (im)moral act in both studies (Study 1 , p = 0.00, Study 2, p = 0.02). In both studies, there was no main effect for gender but there was a marginal interaction effect with the moral act to influence communal perceptions of the leader in Study 1. In Study 1, the means show that a leader was believed to be more communal when he/she displayed prescriptive moral behavior (M = 5.4 SD = 1.3) than when he/she displayed proscriptive moral behavior (M = 4.2 SD = 1.8 ). The results of Study 2 show the opposite effect; here, a leader was believed to be less communal when he/she displayed prescriptive immoral behavior (M = 2.1 , SD = 1.1) than when he/she displayed proscriptive immoral behavior (M = 3.1, SD = 1.5). The same difference in the proscriptive situation occurred in Study 1 in the communal traits ANOVA (Male: M = 3.9; female: M = 4.6).

Besides these main effects, results from Study 1 also showed an interaction effect with a marginal significance (p = 0.127) between the moral act and the communal perceptions of a leader. The results show that female leaders are being evaluated as more communal when they display prescriptive moral behavior (M = 5.2, SD = 1.6). A side from this result, the means also show that male leaders are seen as less communal when they display proscriptive

behavior (M = 3.9, SD = 2.0) compared to female leaders displaying proscriptive behavior (M = 4.6, SD = 1.5).

This means that on average, a leader was believed to be more agentic in Study 1 when he/she displayed prescriptive moral behavior (M = 4.0, SD = 0.6) than when he/she displayed proscriptive moral behavior (M = 3.7, SD = 1.0). The results of Study 2 show the opposite effect; here, a leader was believed to be less agentic when he/she displayed prescriptive immoral behavior (M = 3.4 , SD = 1.0) than when he/she displayed proscriptive immoral behavior (M = 3.9, SD = 1.0).

Besides these main effects, I also found an interaction effect in Study 1 between male and female leaders and the type of morality that was displayed. Results show that male leaders are being evaluated as more agentic when they display prescriptive moral behavior (M = 4.0, SD = 0.35) and the opposite goes for female leaders, they are being evaluated as more agentic when they display proscriptive moral behavior (M = 4.0, SD = 1.0).

For morality, we only found a main effect for the moral act in Study 1, p = 0.00. In both studies, there was no main effect for gender, nor did gender interact with the moral act to influence communality perceptions of the leader. So, it was only found that a leader was believed to be more moral when he/she displayed prescriptive moral behavior (M = 5.6, SD = 1.4) than when he/she displayed proscriptive moral behavior (M = 4.3, SD = 2.3, Study 1). Conversely, in Study 2 a leader was believed to be less moral when he/she displayed prescriptive moral behavior (M = 2.1, SD = 1.4) than when he/she displayed proscriptive moral behavior (M = 2.2, SD = 1.5). and in the moral traits ANOVA (Male: M = 4.0; female: M = 4.4).

Work Impressions

Experienced Feelings

For positive affect, we found main effects for the moral act in both studies (Study 1, p = 0.007, Study 2, p = 0.001). In both studies, there was no main effect for gender, nor did gender interact with the moral act to influence the experienced feelings. In Study 1, the means show that a leader extricated more positive affect when he/she displayed prescriptive moral behavior (M = 3.2, SD = 0.9) than when he/she displayed proscriptive moral behavior (M = 2.7, SD = 1.1). The results of Study 2 show the opposite effect; here, a leader extricated less positive affect when he/she displayed prescriptive immoral behavior (M = 1.6, SD = 1.0) than when he/she displayed proscriptive immoral behavior (M = 2.4, SD = 1.1).

For negative affect we only found a main effect for the moral act in Study 2 (p = 0.013). A leader extricated more negative affect when he/she displayed prescriptive immoral behavior (M = 4.4, SD = 1.7) than when he/she displayed proscriptive immoral behavior (M = 3.5, SD = 1.7). However, I also found a significant difference in Study 2 between male and female leaders in the prescriptive situation with the experienced feelings with a negative affect ANOVA (Male: M = 4.0; female: M = 4.8) but this interaction pattern did not yield significance. This means that female leaders extricate more negative effect when they display a prescriptive form of immorality compared to male leaders in the same situation.

Discussion

The results of Study 1 show that when it comes to the evaluation of moral behavior of a leader, the gender of the leader is indeed a dependent factor. We can conclude that when female leaders show a proscriptive type of morality (so they only inhibit bad behaviors) they will not be evidently evaluated as communal. They will have to show a prescriptive type of morality (the activation of good behavior) in order to be evaluated as communal. This is not the same for male leaders; it is less important whether they are communal or not, and they are seen as moral regardless of the type of morality that is being displayed (prescriptive or

proscriptive). These findings are consistent with both the previous stated hypothesis regarding morality.

This means that when a leader actively generates immoral behavior, they will be evaluated as more immoral compared to an inhibiting situation. These findings do not confirm the second hypothesis regarding immorality.

Theoretical Implications

This research is contributing to the existing literature by examining whether there are differences in the evaluation of male and female leaders when it comes to the display of immoral and moral actions or behavior. The background of this implication lies in the gender-role theory where female leaders are seen as leaders who care about others, so simply

inhibiting bad behaviors is not enough for them to be evaluated as moral, they have to make an effort and activate good behaviors in order to generate this moral evaluation.

More generally, the results from both studies are in line with the idea that the impact of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ behavior are not the same. This difference in impact has been the subject of previous research by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs (2001) and showed that the power of undesirable, unpleasant or harmful outcomes are stronger, larger and more consistent compared to desirable, pleasant or beneficial outcomes. An explanation for this negativity bias is that people generally emphasize the adaptiveness to negative outcomes. This difference in impact is also visible in the results from Study 1 en Study 2, leaders are being evaluated as immoral (regardless of their gender) as soon as they display proscriptive or prescriptive immoral behavior while an evaluation for leaders that display moral behavior is gender dependent. A consequence of this asymmetry in moral motivations is that proscriptive morality can be seen as a more condemnatory and stricter system compared to prescriptive morality. The proscriptive system is more harsher which is corresponding with the results from Study 2, where immoral behavior generates higher means for proscriptive behavior than for prescriptive behavior that is shown by the leader in the presented scenario.

Limitations and Future Directions

This means that in future research, different items must be used to generate a scale that is reliable enough. Also, I acknowledge as a limitation the use of two relatively simply worded scenario studies to model what is perhaps a more complex issue consisting of many other variables and underlying psychological mechanisms.

Regarding future directions, previous research has already shown that morality played an important role in the evaluation of the in-group while, in contrast, morality appears to be less important to the evaluation of out-groups (Leach, 2007). Because in-groups are an important part of the self-concept, and in-group morality is central to positive self-evaluation individuals tend to respond strongly to in-group moral failure (Gausel, Leach & Vignoles, 2012). It is not uncommon for individuals to feel shame and rejection about an in-group’s moral failure because individuals can readily feel shame and rejection about the actions of others. Shame at in-group failure is typically thought to motivate self-defensive withdrawal. Consistent with this, several studies have found shame about in-group moral failure to be associated with the motivation to avoid, hide, cover up, or withdraw.

So, since the role morality in in-groups is more salient compared to the role of morality in out-groups and the fact that the impact of ‘bad’ behavior is more stronger compared to the impact of ‘good’ behavior, we can state that because of this salience and difference in impact, the gender of the leader performing the immoral behavior does not influence the evaluation (since immoral behavior is, per definition, seen as bad, regardless of the leader executing this behavior). This will affect the currently stated hypothesis in a way that in this scenario, there’s no difference between male and female leaders in their evaluation when they display immoral behavior, they will be perceived as immoral anyway (regardless of their gender and the type of morality that is displayed, prescriptive or proscriptive).

If we link these two regulatory systems to both the types of moral regulation (prescriptive and proscriptive morality), we can see that a promotion-focus is closely linked to prescriptive morality. Both are focused on the motivation to do something good and to establish a positive desire. The same goes for prevention-focus, this is closely linked to proscriptive morality since both are focused on restraining a motivation to do something bad and to overcoming a negative desire.

Previous research has shown that people with a promotion focus feel worse about “sins” of omission (e.g. prescriptive immorality), whereas those with a prevention focus feel worse about “sins” of commission (e.g. proscriptive immorality) (Camacho, Higgins, & Luger, 2003). If we connect this finding to the currently stated hypotheses, we can conclude that because respondents with a promotion focus feel worse about sins of omission (in this case; prescriptive immorality), this will invigorate the hypothesis that both male and female leaders will be perceived as immoral when they display prescriptive immoral behavior.

Conclusion

References

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Blasi, Augusto (1984). "Moral Identity: Its Role in Moral Functioning." in Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development, New York: Wiley, 128-39.

Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 498–510.

Carnes, N. (2012). Harm, Help and the Nature of (Im)Moral (In)Action. Psychological

Inquiry, 23, 137-142

Dawson, L., (1995). Women and Men, Morality and Ethics. Business Horizons. Vol. 38 Issue 4, p61.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women

become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Fiebert, S., Meyer, M. (1997). Gender stereotypes: a bias against men. Journal of

Gausel, N., Leach, C., Vignoles V., 2012. Defend or Repair? Explaining Responses to In-Group Moral Failure by Disentangling Feelings of Shame, Rejection, and Inferiority. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 102, 941-960

Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its nature and justification. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A., (2012). Mind Perception is the essence of morality,

Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101-124

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to wellbeing: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

Janoff-Bullman, R., Sheikh, S. (2009). Proscriptive morality versus prescriptive morality: Two Faces of Moral Regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 96 Issue 3, p521-537.

Kohlberg, L., (1958). The Development of Modes of Moral Thinking and Choice. University

of Chicago

Kurt, D., Inman, J., Argo, J., (2011). The Influence of Friends on Consumer Spending: The Role of Agency-Communion Orientation and Self-Monitoring. Journal of Marketing

Research (JMR). Vol. 48, Issue 4, p741-754.

Kusterer, H., Lindholm, T., Montgomery, H., Gender Typing in Stereotypes and Evaluation of Actual Managers, Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2013, Vol. 28, p561-579

Leach, C., Ellemers, N., 2007. Group Virtue: The Importance of Morality (vs. Competence and Sociability) in the Positive Evaluation of In-Groups. Journal of Personality and Social

O’Neill, O., O’Reilly, C., (2011), Reducing the backlash effect: Self-monitoring and women's promotions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 4, 825-832. Page Winterich, K., Mittal, V., Ross Jr, W., (2009). Donation Behavior toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p199-214.

Schein, V. E. (1973). ‘The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100.

Appendix 1: Scenarios Immorality Study and Morality Study

Study 1: Male / Female leader x Moral Behavior (Prescriptive vs. Proscriptive)

Proscriptive morality: The inhibition of “bad” behaviors

Sarah is a business unit manager within the Genesso Corporation. Although she is not

directly responsible for the financial department of the corporation, occasionally she has lunch with a colleague who has special access to information about the Genesso Corporation’s corporate strategy. She recently learned about an upcoming merger between Genesso and their major competitor, which could double the value of Genesso’s stock. Sarah decided not to pass this valuable information along to anybody else, but to keep this information to herself. Tom is a business unit manager within the Genesso Corporation. Although he is not directly responsible for the financial department of the corporation, occasionally he has lunch with a colleague who has special access to information about the Genesso Corporation’s corporate strategy. He recently learned about an upcoming merger between Genesso and their major competitor, which could double the value of Genesso’s stock. Tom decided not to pass this valuable information along to anybody else, but to keep this information to himself. Prescriptive morality: An act of “good” behavior

Sarah is a business unit manager with the Genesso Corporation. Each year, this company organizes a big fund raising event to collect money for an educational program that aims to reduce illiteracy. The board of directors has asked each business unit manager to motivate their employees to help organize this fund raising event. Sarah agreed with this request, and motivated her employees to sign up for the organization. Sarah also collected money for the educational program amongst her own network.

Study 2: Male / Female Leader x Immoral Behavior (Prescriptive vs Proscriptive)

Proscriptive immorality: An act of bad behavior (a failure to inhibit).

Sarah is a business unit manager within the Genesso Corporation. Although she is not directly responsible for the financial department of the corporation, occasionally she has lunch with a colleague who has special access to information about the Genesso Corporation’s corporate strategy. She recently learned about an upcoming merger between Genesso and their major competitor, which could double the value of Genesso’s stock. Sarah decided to pass this valuable information along to an anonymous agent, who ended up buying Genesso’s stock for Sarah. By doing this, Sarah made a considerable amount of money.

Tom is a business unit manager within the Genesso Corporation. Although he is not directly responsible for the financial department of the corporation, occasionally he has lunch with a colleague who has special access to information about the Genesso Corporation’s corporate strategy. He recently learned about an upcoming merger between Genesso and their major competitor, which could double the value of Genesso’s stock. Tom decided to pass this valuable information along to an anonymous agent, who ended up buying Genesso’s stock for Tom. By doing this, Tom made a considerable amount of money.

Prescriptive immorality: An omission of good behavior

Sarah is a business unit manager with the Genesso Corporation. Each year, this company organizes a big fund raising event to collect money for an educational program that aims to reduce illiteracy. The board of directors has asked each business unit manager to motivate their employees to help organize this fund raising event. Sarah decided to ignore this request and did not motivate her employees to sign up for the organization, nor did she collect money for the educational program amongst her own network.

Appendix 2: Scenario Questions Immorality Study and Morality Study

Agentic / Communal / Moral Traits

Work Impressions

Q3

Definitely

not (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Definitely yes (7)

Experienced Feelings